yuttadhammo wrote:I was referring to suttas like the Sammaditthi Sutta.

Dear Venerable Yuttadhammo.

Off topic but why the Sammaditthi Sutta? I have never noticed any conflict there.

What about the Satipatthana Sutta and its incoherent listing of various disconnected and random ordered meditation teachings? For example, how could contemplation of the five hindrances occur in the fourth Satipatthana, at the end? This would indicate no concentration has been developed.

Warm regards

one reason would be that the Buddha didn't say that/those suttas according to the uddeso sections! it was Sariputta.

therefore it would not be Buddhavacana as in spoken by the Buddha, but would be Buddhavacana as in spoken by one who understands, ie any enlightened being, a disciple etc. the Satipatthana sutts is spoken by the Buddha therefore would be classed as Buddhavacana.

that is FWIW what I think Bhante is referring to, not scholarship which 'proves' dates of additions etc!

but the clue is in the name to start, SATIpatthana, and indicates no concentration has been developer???

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

yuttadhammo wrote:I was referring to suttas like the Sammaditthi Sutta.

Dear Venerable Yuttadhammo.

Off topic but why the Sammaditthi Sutta? I have never noticed any conflict there.

As Manapa says, and what should have been clear from my post, I was referring to the fact that the Sammaditthi Sutta was spoken by Sariputta.

What about the Satipatthana Sutta and its incoherent listing of various disconnected and random ordered meditation teachings? For example, how could contemplation of the five hindrances occur in the fourth Satipatthana, at the end? This would indicate no concentration has been developed.

That's really a sad argument for the non-authenticity of the text... the four satipatthana are in no way a chronologically ordered list of meditation practices, they are to be practised together, or separately according to one's carita. What you are suggesting, basically, is that the satipatthana sutta as it stands suggests the practice of kaayanusati, then vedana, then citta, then finally dhamma. Of course this is not proper meditation practice, since the hindrances will have to be dealt with in the very beginning of one's practice. Your argument is akin to saying the five precepts should be kept in the order they are presented. If you are truly interested in the relationship between the five hindrances and the practice of satipatthana, I recommend the lengthy debate between a Mahasi Sayadaw teacher and a Sri Lankan teacher:

I was referring to the fact that the Sammaditthi Sutta was spoken by Sariputta.

Bhikkhu Yuttadhammo

I must certainly disagree with you strongly. The Buddha advised in the Ekapuggala Sutta in the AN 1s that if there is one person who can follow up the Dhamma declared by him, it is the Venerable Sariputta. Suttas such as MN 9, MN 18, MN 44 (spoken by Dhammadinna) and MN 141 are Buddhavacca because they are consistent with what the Buddha spoke. As concluded in MN 18 and MN 44:

Maha Kaccana is wise, monks. He is a person of great discernment. If you had asked me about this matter, I too would have answered in the same way he did. That is the meaning of this statement. That is how you should remember it.

Dhammadinna the nun is wise, Visakha, a woman of great discernment. If you had asked me those things, I would have answered you in the same way she did. That is the meaning of those things. That is how you should remember it.

Of course this is not proper meditation practice, since the hindrances will have to be dealt with in the very beginning of one's practice.

Bhikkhu Yuttadhammo

What you have stated above is the exact point I was making.

If you are truly interested in the relationship between the five hindrances and the practice of satipatthana, I recommend the lengthy debate between a Mahasi Sayadaw teacher and a Sri Lankan teacher.

Thank you but no thank you. You have already presented enough idiosyncratic opinions I am inclined to disagree with. Recommending your own school is not really the answer. The suttas make clear the place of the five hindrances.

Warm regards

On returning from his almsround, after his meal he sits down, folding his legs crosswise, setting his body erect, and establishing mindfulness before him. Abandoning covetousness for the world he abides with a mind free from covetousness; he purifies his mind from covetousness. Abandoning ill-will and hatred, he abides with a mind free from ill-will, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings; he purifies his mind from ill-will and hatred. Abandoning sloth and torpor, he abides free from sloth and torpor, percipient of light, mindful and fully aware; he purifies his mind from sloth and torpor. Abandoning restlessness and remorse, he abides unagitated with a mind inwardly peaceful; he purifies his mind from restlessness and remorse. Abandoning doubt, he abides having gone beyond doubt, unperplexed about wholesome states; he purifies his mind of doubt.

“Having thus abandoned these five hindrances, imperfections of the mind that weaken wisdom, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, he enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by thinking and examining thought, with joy and happiness born of seclusion. With the stilling of thinking and examining thought, he enters and abides in the second jhāna which has self-confidence and stillness of mind without thinking and examining thought, with joy and happiness born of collectedness. With the fading away as well of joy a bhikkhu abides in equanimity, and mindful and fully aware, still feeling pleasure with the body, he enters and abides in the third jhāna, on account of which noble ones announce: ‘He has a pleasant abiding who has equanimity and is mindful.' With the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the previous disappearance of joy and grief, a bhikkhu enters and abides in the fourth jhāna, which has neither -pain-nor-pleasure and purity of mindfulness due to equanimity.

I was referring to the fact that the Sammaditthi Sutta was spoken by Sariputta.

Bhikkhu Yuttadhammo

I must certainly disagree with you strongly. The Buddha advised in the Ekapuggala Sutta in the AN 1s that if there is one person who can follow up the Dhamma declared by him, it is the Venerable Sariputta. Suttas such as MN 9, MN 18, MN 44 (spoken by Dhammadinna) and MN 141 are Buddhavacca because they are consistent with what the Buddha spoke. As concluded in MN 18 and MN 44:

Maha Kaccana is wise, monks. He is a person of great discernment. If you had asked me about this matter, I too would have answered in the same way he did. That is the meaning of this statement. That is how you should remember it.

Dhammadinna the nun is wise, Visakha, a woman of great discernment. If you had asked me those things, I would have answered you in the same way she did. That is the meaning of those things. That is how you should remember it.

are you saying the Buddha did, because that is all you can disagree with!
The Buddha did not speak that, or all suttas so those would not be litterally Buddhavacana i.e. spoken by the Buddha, which is the point being made and why they were mentioned, as not being Buddhavacana, in that sense of the term, not in the sense of being spoken by one who understands.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

yuttadhammo wrote:That's really a sad argument for the non-authenticity of the text... the four satipatthana are in no way a chronologically ordered list of meditation practices

Venerable Yuttadhamma

Most teachings of the Buddha are expressions of the path. All of the 37 bodhipaccikya dhammas are expressions of the path. Four satipatthana, four right efforts, four iddhipada, five faculties, five powers, seven factors of enlightenement and the eightfold path. The former dhammas in all of these groups of dhammas flow into the later dhammas, which is why they are expessions of the path. The Anapanasati Sutta is an expression of the path. The discourses on Dependent Cessation are expressions of the path.

The Satipatthana Sutta is not an expression of the path. And yes, expressions of the path are chronologically ordered, which is why they are expressions of the path.

As for your opinion about the five precepts, the five precepts are not "the path".

Manapa wrote:...but the clue is in the name to start, SATIpatthana, and indicates no concentration has been developed???

Manapa

If no concentration has been developed, then SATIpatthana is not the path, because the path is eight factors rather than one. Please note your opinion is at odds with the Anapanasati Sutta, which includes concentration and insight. The Anapanasati Sutta states:

This is how mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is developed & pursued so as to bring the four frames of reference to their culmination.

This is how the four frames of reference are developed & pursued so as to bring the seven factors for awakening to their culmination.

This is how the seven factors for awakening are developed & pursued so as to bring clear knowing & release to their culmination.

sunset,
Sorry I realised that I misrepresented the teaching there!
what I should of said is; it is sati that is being developed and the focus of that sutta, not concentration specifically! concentraction would naturally develop but it is not the aim to delve into sammasamadhi within that context, but to explore the different ways mindfulness can and should be developed!

I am not going to be able to respond again unfortunately

Sunset wrote:

Manapa wrote:...but the clue is in the name to start, SATIpatthana, and indicates no concentration has been developed???

Manapa

If no concentration has been developed, then SATIpatthana is not the path, because the path is eight factors rather than one. Please note your opinion is at odds with the Anapanasati Sutta, which includes concentration and insight. The Anapanasati Sutta states:

This is how mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is developed & pursued so as to bring the four frames of reference to their culmination.

This is how the four frames of reference are developed & pursued so as to bring the seven factors for awakening to their culmination.

This is how the seven factors for awakening are developed & pursued so as to bring clear knowing & release to their culmination.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

Terasi wrote:I am disappointed. Yes, it's naive, but I have to get it out. I've been reading about many matters in Theravada in the attempt to know more about the path of my choice, and so far this is one issue which I fail to persuade myself to understand. As a newcomer to Theravada, I have nothing to say in terms of Vinaya, Sutta, etc, but I do have something to say as a female who is currently on the doorstep of Theravada. So, this sect that I thought is down-to-earth, fair, rational, cool-headed, is actually an exclusive boy's club?'

Stop thinking from male or female point of view, think about human. It's hard to be born as human, why would half the population want to deprive the other half? Both the boys and the girls have to learn to control "the supermagnetic attraction between the genders". Please do not think that for the sake of the boys, then let the girls out in the cold. I can understand the reason why monastics do not handle money, which is to rid themselves of the temptation to be greedy. In this matter though, let's not forget this is not money, not just a thing/object, here we are talking about women who.. surprise surprise... are human!

OK, I've said I got nothing to contribute. The person described in OP's post doesn't sound like the Buddha I've been hearing about so far. How are we to be sure that the words come from the Buddha himself? And if those are truly his, it must be for 2500 years ago, and now.. hello.. time's changed. Separation is possible, noone said monks and nuns have to reside together, travel together, meet everyday etc - if you are worried about some monks being "chick magnet". The Buddha himself said that minor adjustments are possible, while on the other hand the Sangha was described as consisting of bhikkhunis too. Trying to keep bhikkhunis out of the picture, that would be a major change. Why would a good monk be refrained from helping his fellow seekers, who happen to be women, to ordain?

Saying so much, this's only a minor fraction of Theravada. There are bhikkhunis in other countries - why can't they learn from others. Sorry, I definitely don't know much, the ordination, the Vinaya, etc. are not my concern (yet). I just can't stand outdated misogynistic views, be it in Buddhism or elsewhere. Stopping this little rant now, back to my corner.

/rant

I personally think there should be an equal standing for both males and females.

As for Bhikkuni ordination I am also a great advocate.

Metta

"If the problem can be solved there's no use worrying about it, if it cant worrying will do no good." - 7 years in Tibet

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." - The Buddha

Rather than engaging in speculation, I think it would be better for some monasteries to make men and women equal in rules, and for other monasteries to keep the traditional rules. Then we can be mindful of the results.

If there are already monasteries out there which are like both, perhaps people with experiences with both monasteries could share their insights on how they think their way is the best.

Individual wrote:Rather than engaging in speculation, I think it would be better for some monasteries to make men and women equal in rules, and for other monasteries to keep the traditional rules. Then we can be mindful of the results.

If there are already monasteries out there which are like both, perhaps people with experiences with both monasteries could share their insights on how they think their way is the best.

I think in reality we would find that there would be little difference between men and women. Although it's true to say men and women are different, well it is also true that I am different to you and you to another and so on. The middle way should when practiced properly eliminate the potential for problems regardless of gender IMHO.

Just my two cents as I have always thought it strange the gender bias involved in the Sangha.

With Metta,

Adam

"If the problem can be solved there's no use worrying about it, if it cant worrying will do no good." - 7 years in Tibet

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." - The Buddha

Individual wrote:Rather than engaging in speculation, I think it would be better for some monasteries to make men and women equal in rules, and for other monasteries to keep the traditional rules. Then we can be mindful of the results.

If there are already monasteries out there which are like both, perhaps people with experiences with both monasteries could share their insights on how they think their way is the best.

I think in reality we would find that there would be little difference between men and women. Although it's true to say men and women are different, well it is also true that I am different to you and you to another and so on. The middle way should when practiced properly eliminate the potential for problems regardless of gender IMHO.

Just my two cents as I have always thought it strange the gender bias involved in the Sangha.

With Metta,

Adam

Pardon me if I am politically incorrect here, but men and women are not equal -- not simply in terms of genitalia and giving birth -- but even in terms of brain chemistry and composition. These differences are subtle, but perhaps there are meaningful differences that may be a justification for an unequal set of rules. There are the stereotypes that women are more strongly influenced by emotion, are prone to being petty, jealous, and troublesome. Perhaps these are just stereotypes or perhaps not. Outside the western world, in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, perceptions like these persist. Perhaps they are misguided or maybe there is some basis behind it.

When it comes to conversations like this, I am reminded of a quote by Socrates, "When woman is made equal to man, she becomes his superior." Think about what exactly that means and why Socrates might say it.

Of course it also depends on the woman. We could create further distinctions whereby there are some male monks who need further rules too, and there are some women who could probably do with less.

Individual wrote:Rather than engaging in speculation, I think it would be better for some monasteries to make men and women equal in rules, and for other monasteries to keep the traditional rules. Then we can be mindful of the results.

If there are already monasteries out there which are like both, perhaps people with experiences with both monasteries could share their insights on how they think their way is the best.

I think in reality we would find that there would be little difference between men and women. Although it's true to say men and women are different, well it is also true that I am different to you and you to another and so on. The middle way should when practiced properly eliminate the potential for problems regardless of gender IMHO.

Just my two cents as I have always thought it strange the gender bias involved in the Sangha.

With Metta,

Adam

Pardon me if I am politically incorrect here, but men and women are not equal -- not simply in terms of genitalia and giving birth -- but even in terms of brain chemistry and composition. These differences are subtle, but perhaps there are meaningful differences that may be a justification for an unequal set of rules. There are the stereotypes that women are more strongly influenced by emotion, are prone to being petty, jealous, and troublesome. Perhaps these are just stereotypes or perhaps not. Outside the western world, in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, perceptions like these persist. Perhaps they are misguided or maybe there is some basis behind it.

When it comes to conversations like this, I am reminded of a quote by Socrates, "When woman is made equal to man, she becomes his superior." Think about what exactly that means and why Socrates might say it.

Of course it also depends on the woman. We could create further distinctions whereby there are some male monks who need further rules too, and there are some women who could probably do with less.

Sorry but that to me sounds silly, I think in reality whatever differences lie underneath they do not qualify as superiority or inferiority.

Now I'm not sure if you meant in the fact that women are not equal in terms of in society now, which I would agree. But if you meant women are not equal at all to men then I must simply disagree with this evaluation.

With Metta,

Adam

"If the problem can be solved there's no use worrying about it, if it cant worrying will do no good." - 7 years in Tibet

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." - The Buddha

Last edited by Hanzze on Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Just that! *smile*...We Buddhists must find the courage to leave our temples and enter the temples of human experience, temples that are filled with suffering. If we listen to Buddha, Christ, or Gandhi, we can do nothing else. The refugee camps, the prisons, the ghettos, and the battlefields will become our temples. We have so much work to do. ... Peace is Possible! Step by Step. - Samtach Preah Maha Ghosananda "Step by Step" http://www.ghosananda.org/bio_book.html

BUT! it is important to become a real Buddhist first. Like Punna did: Punna Sutta Nate sante baram sokham _()_

Sasana wrote:
Sorry but that to me sounds silly, I think in reality whatever differences lie underneath they do not qualify as superiority or inferiority.

Now I'm not sure if you meant in the fact that women are not equal in terms of in society now, which I would agree. But if you meant women are not equal at all to men then I must simply disagree with this evaluation.

With Metta,

Adam

"Superior," means in terms of authority or status, not personal value.

I acknowledge women and men are equal in some cases and different in some cases. What I'm saying that their similarities might be good basis to get rid of the old rules, but their differences might be a good basis to keep the old rules.

Sasana wrote:
Sorry but that to me sounds silly, I think in reality whatever differences lie underneath they do not qualify as superiority or inferiority.

Now I'm not sure if you meant in the fact that women are not equal in terms of in society now, which I would agree. But if you meant women are not equal at all to men then I must simply disagree with this evaluation.

With Metta,

Adam

"Superior," means in terms of authority or status, not personal value.

I acknowledge women and men are equal in some cases and different in some cases. What I'm saying that their similarities might be good basis to get rid of the old rules, but their differences might be a good basis to keep the old rules.

I think it will be a case of agreeing to disagree. There cannot be a major enough difference that would warrant such blatant segregation, it is merely a symptom of the times in which they were written and more than likely the outcome of a male dominated forte.

With Metta,

Adam

"If the problem can be solved there's no use worrying about it, if it cant worrying will do no good." - 7 years in Tibet

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." - The Buddha

Didn't really want to broach the subject again, as it doesn't seem to be an easy one to discuss rationally, but here it is broached already

The intention was to try to show how the reason for the unequal footing has nothing to do with differences between men and women, but the relationship between them. As said, there is no equality among bhikkhus as it is - everyone has a place in the totem pole irrespective of their personal worth. I think this point is missed by a mile in most discussions of the garu dhamma.

One thing the OP failed to take into account is that the garu dhamma do not just enforce unequal footing, they also enforce inequality in practices, e.g. length of vuṭṭhāna-vidhī. But again, I don't see the reason for these rules as being a view that women are inferior; since adding Bhikkhunis to the mix is going to create more problems, it is not hard to see why the rules regarding Bhikkhunis should be more strict. Fair? No. Expedient? I think so. Surely many will disagree, but given that we monks are happy to take on rules, the stricter the better (hence the dhutanga practices), it still seems little more than conceit that drives most of the "equality" rants in regards to the bhikkhuni ordination. The rest of us are rather a bit jealous of the challenges allowed for bhikkhunis over bhikkhus

yuttadhammo wrote:The rest of us are rather a bit jealous of the challenges allowed for bhikkhunis over bhikkhus

If that's the case and if you're really so jealous, maybe you actually should let yourself be restricted in the same way as bhikkhunis -- to calm the hornet's nest rather than stir it up.

Yes, the problem is I have respect for the rules as passed down. As the Buddha said, "the growth of the bhikkhus is to be expected, not their decline, bhikkhus, so long as they appoint no new rules, and do not abolish the existing ones, but proceed in accordance with the code of training (Vinaya) laid down." (D 16). Had the rules been different, I would, with Mahāpajāpati Gotamī as my role model in humility and restraint, "receive them like a garland of flowers placed on the head" (CV.10). To do aught else could only be attributed to conceit.

yuttadhammo wrote:The rest of us are rather a bit jealous of the challenges allowed for bhikkhunis over bhikkhus

If that's the case and if you're really so jealous, maybe you actually should let yourself be restricted in the same way as bhikkhunis -- to calm the hornet's nest rather than stir it up.

Yes, the problem is I have respect for the rules as passed down. As the Buddha said, "the growth of the bhikkhus is to be expected, not their decline, bhikkhus, so long as they appoint no new rules, and do not abolish the existing ones, but proceed in accordance with the code of training (Vinaya) laid down." (D 16). Had the rules been different, I would, with Mahāpajāpati Gotamī as my role model in humility and restraint, "receive them like a garland of flowers placed on the head" (CV.10). To do aught else could only be attributed to conceit.

I think the Buddha could see far more than we can see in our limited logical ways of viewing the world. All our arguments amount to nothing if the Buddha could (and it is said that he can) see the outcomes of current causes (ie future effects). He proclaimed that what he taught was like a handful of leaves and what he could see was like all the leaves in the forest. So I think we need to be a bit humble in our judgements of his decisions.